Author
Topic: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2] (Read 60590 times)

Wuweiwarrior

I dunno why some people are complaining about an upgrade to the Rebel line. Camera companies upgrade. Thats what they do.

Besides, if you think an upgrade to the t3i is pointless...you will be able to pick up a discounted one when the T4i comes out. :-)

I was going to buy a T3i for alot of traveling i plan to do next year. But i will wait and see what features the T4i has before I decide. Personally, like some here, i don't care too much about MORE mega pixels on an APS-C dslr. I think 18 is fine. I'm don't know what other upgrades they will include....

If the difference is negligable, i will nab the T3i. But if they manage to squeeze some cool upgrades into the T4i, i may nab one of those too.

Right now i am using my iphone 4S for all my travel photography. It's my favorite carry always camera hands down. But having a Rebel with a 10-22mm for awesome landscape travel photos....and a nifty fifty for portraits with lushous bokuh is tempting.

skrettis

Tday I am running Magic Lantern with AudioMonitor and follow-focus firmware on 550D / Rebel2i and I cannot find any other reason to change to a newer Canon exept having a GPS for my Nature Pictures / Geo pictures.

A Canon SLR / Rebel.. with GPS NATIVE and not as a SNAP ON! Like the newest SONY!

Native support for REMOTE MIC and flash would also be a nice feature that would make change now..

Nejko

7D mk2: the old 45-AF from the 1D and 8-10fps - to better kick the D40070D: the 19-AF from the 7D mk1 and 6fps - to rival the D7100650D: the xxD line 9-AF point system and say.. 4fps

Even if they remain having the same sensor.. the AF + build factor make all the difference you need.The 7D mk2 would be around 1400â‚¬.. about the same than the D300s with the AF of the D3s.. stands to reason?

7D mk2: the old 45-AF from the 1D and 8-10fps - to better kick the D40070D: the 19-AF from the 7D mk1 and 6fps - to rival the D7100650D: the xxD line 9-AF point system and say.. 4fps

Even if they remain having the same sensor.. the AF + build factor make all the difference you need.The 7D mk2 would be around 1400.. about the same than the D300s with the AF of the D3s.. stands to reason?

I consistently read two comments on this site that I'm not so sure I agree with.

1) People say that camera companies must upgrade their models every year because consumers want the latest and greatest; and

2) Many of these same folks insist that the average consumer equates more megapixels with better.

I'm just not sure either one is correct and I'd love to see some marketing research to support these viewpoints. My questions: How many average consumers even know what year a particular model of camera is released and what evidence is there that they care? It's not like Canon has ever tagged their products as "Rebels 2000." As long as the camera has features that are competitive with similar models in the store, do consumers really care? Yes, it gives salespeople a selling point, but they would just pivot to another selling point if that were not available. Again, I'm not saying this is not the case, I'm just questioning whether this is backed up by any hard evidence or if it's just internet legend.

Similarly, yes, megapixels are a handy indicator of how "powerful" a camera is. But, if that were the deciding factor, Nikon would never sell another consumer DSLR. Actually, however, my point here is maybe a bit more nuanced, as I wonder at what point camera manufacturers will face blowback from consumers for having "too many megapixels."

We all know that most consumer images today are destined for Facebook or other social media sites. Or, they can end up in a printed souvenir book using one of the many awful, corny graphic designs that are so popular among new parents, couples getting married, etc. etc.

In both cases, the size of the file is fast reaching a point where it can be a detriment to quick uploads for sharing or printing. Many of the photographers on this site have complained about the way large files hog space on their computers. What makes us think that the average consumer doesn't face this problem as well, along with the frustration of uploading large megapixel images.

While many of the users here know to downsize a file for the web, I suspect that many consumers aren't even aware of that option. I just wonder if we won't reach a point where consumers will start to complain because their 24 (or 30, or 40 or 50) megapixel images take forever to load onto Facebook and cause their computer to crash.

Just a few thoughts to encourage people to think a bit outside the box when making assumptions about consumer preferences without any solid research.

My wishful thinking: a more modest increase (21 mp) or no increase (keep at 18 mp) for the 7DII with improvements in noise, dynamic range and ISO. This allows clear differentiation between the 7D and the Rebel line.

I keep asking myself, what would cause me to upgrade from a 7D to a 7DII? I'm not an anti-megapixel person, but that alone won't do it for me and I suspect it won't do it for most 7D owners.

Some argue that current 7D owners aren't the target market (Canon wants to lure Rebel and 60D owners). To some extent that may be true, but two thoughts there: First, sophisticated Rebel and 60D owners also need to be convinced that the 7D is superior enough to warrant the upgrade...

The 1D X's 12 fps opens up room for a 7DII to have up 9-10 fps, so that's one obvious possible improvement. I do think they'll improve ISO noise performance as well. They might give the 7DII a new metering sensor that's somewhere in between the 1D X's 100K RGB pixels and the current 63 dual-layer zones.

AF, frame rate, and build quality provide clear differentiator for the 7D line from the Rebel line - after all, those are the same differentiators of the 1-series from the other xD series bodies, and of the xxD line from the Rebel line as intermediate steps.

I do think that the line between the 60D and the 7D is a little blurrier, and that's the reason the 60D lacks AFMA, for example.

I sure hope you are right I'll be watching the higher iso noise carefully as i am hoping the next 7D will be the next body I buy i also hope they keep the battery the same I really want to decluter my kit and be able to use the same battery's cards, and charger, If that is a performer then my 1Dmk 3 gets some permanent IR conversion goodness

I consistently read two comments on this site that I'm not so sure I agree with.

1) People say that camera companies must upgrade their models every year because consumers want the latest and greatest; and

2) Many of these same folks insist that the average consumer equates more megapixels with better.

I'm just not sure either one is correct and I'd love to see some marketing research to support these viewpoints. My questions: How many average consumers even know what year a particular model of camera is released and what evidence is there that they care? It's not like Canon has ever tagged their products as "Rebels 2000." As long as the camera has features that are competitive with similar models in the store, do consumers really care? Yes, it gives salespeople a selling point, but they would just pivot to another selling point if that were not available. Again, I'm not saying this is not the case, I'm just questioning whether this is backed up by any hard evidence or if it's just internet legend.

Similarly, yes, megapixels are a handy indicator of how "powerful" a camera is. But, if that were the deciding factor, Nikon would never sell another consumer DSLR. Actually, however, my point here is maybe a bit more nuanced, as I wonder at what point camera manufacturers will face blowback from consumers for having "too many megapixels."

We all know that most consumer images today are destined for Facebook or other social media sites. Or, they can end up in a printed souvenir book using one of the many awful, corny graphic designs that are so popular among new parents, couples getting married, etc. etc.

In both cases, the size of the file is fast reaching a point where it can be a detriment to quick uploads for sharing or printing. Many of the photographers on this site have complained about the way large files hog space on their computers. What makes us think that the average consumer doesn't face this problem as well, along with the frustration of uploading large megapixel images.

While many of the users here know to downsize a file for the web, I suspect that many consumers aren't even aware of that option. I just wonder if we won't reach a point where consumers will start to complain because their 24 (or 30, or 40 or 50) megapixel images take forever to load onto Facebook and cause their computer to crash.

Just a few thoughts to encourage people to think a bit outside the box when making assumptions about consumer preferences without any solid research.

I am hoping that poeple paying $1000+ for cameras gear will pay closer attention the things like IQ, high ISO performance, DR, AF capability, etc, rather then focus on MP alone. I think as much as some Marketing team have banked on the MP war in the past to sell certain model, the same Marketing teams can come up with compelling strategies to convince and educate customers that the other aspects listed above are also of prime importance...

For my part I dont really car the exact number of MP for my next body, I just want it to be better then my current one!

I consistently read two comments on this site that I'm not so sure I agree with.

1) People say that camera companies must upgrade their models every year because consumers want the latest and greatest; and

2) Many of these same folks insist that the average consumer equates more megapixels with better.

I'm just not sure either one is correct and I'd love to see some marketing research to support these viewpoints. My questions: How many average consumers even know what year a particular model of camera is released and what evidence is there that they care? It's not like Canon has ever tagged their products as "Rebels 2000." As long as the camera has features that are competitive with similar models in the store, do consumers really care? Yes, it gives salespeople a selling point, but they would just pivot to another selling point if that were not available. Again, I'm not saying this is not the case, I'm just questioning whether this is backed up by any hard evidence or if it's just internet legend.

Similarly, yes, megapixels are a handy indicator of how "powerful" a camera is. But, if that were the deciding factor, Nikon would never sell another consumer DSLR. Actually, however, my point here is maybe a bit more nuanced, as I wonder at what point camera manufacturers will face blowback from consumers for having "too many megapixels."

We all know that most consumer images today are destined for Facebook or other social media sites. Or, they can end up in a printed souvenir book using one of the many awful, corny graphic designs that are so popular among new parents, couples getting married, etc. etc.

In both cases, the size of the file is fast reaching a point where it can be a detriment to quick uploads for sharing or printing. Many of the photographers on this site have complained about the way large files hog space on their computers. What makes us think that the average consumer doesn't face this problem as well, along with the frustration of uploading large megapixel images.

While many of the users here know to downsize a file for the web, I suspect that many consumers aren't even aware of that option. I just wonder if we won't reach a point where consumers will start to complain because their 24 (or 30, or 40 or 50) megapixel images take forever to load onto Facebook and cause their computer to crash.

Just a few thoughts to encourage people to think a bit outside the box when making assumptions about consumer preferences without any solid research.

I think the ability for the salesperson to say "This is the newest version" is a massive selling point. Huge. A lot of times the people have no idea what they are looking at and equally so the salesman doesn't know what he's selling. It's easy to just say "Newest model"

I've listened to these selling points quite a bit as I browse around the big stores. It's important.

Perhaps it wouldn't matter as much if nobody updated the lower end every year. But since one person started they all must. For the most part these consumers don't have brand loyalty.

the most my logic has to dictate is a revisited 19-AF from the 7D, to cover a bigger area.. and not the 45 or 61-AF.. itÂ´s a studio/still camera.. MF with live-view is better, not? i shoot sport..

As a future buyer of the 5DmkII replacement I sure hope you are right!

However I am less certain this will happen unless the 5D replacement is significantly higher in quality and price point then the current version - like a EOS 3 body for example... Canon seem to have a different approach then Nikon when it comes to AF systems differentiation between its "pro and semi-pro" level DSLR...

I have brand loyalty...one reason I bought an S95 is that I already had a 7D and a 5DII. That's what Canon had in mind, right?!?

As for moonlighting, "This new Rebel camera is a great choice - just came out and has LOTS of megapixels. You should also get this great second lens with a BIG zoom. You'll need these Promaster protection filters, has 'pro' in the name 'cuz they're what the pros use. Oh, and you really need to get the great extended warranty we offer - it covers everything, no fine print, honest!"

I have a 20D, and my longest lens (aside from my telescope) is my 70-200/2.8L IS Mark I with stacked 1.4x teleconverters. That combo performs very well at it's optical peak of f/9.

Just a couple of days ago, B&H has the 70-200/2.8L IS Mark II for $1,974. I thought very seriously about jumping on it, primarily for it's ability to perform well with stacked 1.4x and 2x teleconverters on an 18MP 1.6-crop sensor. I didn't, however, because no Canon body with that sensor could AF with that combination.

My goal is basically 2x more real resolving power than I have now, with the same handholdability and while retaining fast AF (basically, near diffraction-limited with AF). I have 8.2MP and 400mm, so 16.4MP and 560mm would do it, or 32.8MP and 400mm would do it (assuming sufficient optical quality in both cases). Well, with the loss of f/8 AF sensors on the 1D line, it seems like the only hope is for a ton of pixel density. 24MP and 400mm would get me about 70% more real resolution than I have now, and maybe that would be enough to make me spend all those thousands of dollars, maybe not, by 18MP and 400mm wasn't, even with the $400 off a couple of days ago.

So, yes, bring on the pixel density, and bring on the flexible video crop options - they're handy with astrophotography and in other special cases.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I know that the specs aren't out yet, but I figured the new kiss x6 would at least have the digic 5 processor in it. But what I wanted to ask, if I was looking for improved ISO performance, would it be worth the upgrade from a kiss x4 to the x5? Or should I just wait and get the 70D when it comes out?

Side note, I hope that they at least put two mics on the new kiss coming out, does wonders for audio fidelity.

650d, likely the moment that I'll change my 400d. I have been waiting for digic 5. better iso and video is almost certain, (H)DR would be nice.I hope for finally a better af (micro adjust?) then the 30d/400d, better viewfinder and no more or even less (than 18) MP